From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland

The Finnish government led by Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) submitted no fewer than three legislative proposals to Parliament for approval on Thursday. For this reason, Interior Minister Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), who led their preparation and presented the matter in Parliament, remarked that “we are having a kind of immigration super Thursday.”

The purpose of the legislative proposals is to streamline Finland’s immigration policy by introducing a citizenship test, intensifying the deportation and entry bans of those residing in the country illegally, and making use of the opportunities provided by the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

The aim of the citizenship test is to ensure that Finnish citizenship is not granted without the applicant having familiarity with Finnish society. However, the level of knowledge required to pass the test is not particularly demanding, as passing the multiple-choice exam only requires correctly answering seven out of ten questions.

According to the Interior Minister, the government “expects individuals seeking Finnish citizenship to be proactive in acting in the manner required by law.” For this reason, integration funding will in the future be more precisely directed toward teaching Finland’s national languages—which can only be welcomed.

Regarding deportations, the government aims to ensure that deportation decisions can be carried out more efficiently and quickly than at present. In addition, endangering national security will be added as grounds for an entry ban—this will also apply to individuals seeking to enter Finland from within the EU.

The third change is mainly technical. It implements the EU’s migration and asylum pact, which will in the future make it possible to transfer the asylum process to a country outside the Union. This too is an excellent development—provided the future arrives before it is too late.

* * *

In my view, all of the government’s proposals yesterday are good and necessary—if not outright essential—conditions for transforming immigration from its current burden into something beneficial for Finland. Therefore, it is worth observing how Parliament responds to them.

It is, of course, to be expected that members of Parliament from the far left will react negatively to at least some of the proposals. If and when this happens, it will not change the image already formed of the Left Alliance and the Greens as a “fifth column” marching within our country.

More interesting, however, is to see what happens within the government itself—especially within the parliamentary groups of the Swedish People’s Party (RKP) and the National Coalition Party—as well as within the main opposition parties, the Social Democratic Party and the Centre Party. Will there also be, and if so how many, individuals willing to participate in the activities of a “fifth column”?

* * *

As an aside, and loosely related to the topic: Member of Parliament Joakim Vigelius (Finns Party) made a rather apt remark on social media. He stated that “it is quite a paradox that first low-income people are attracted from around the world to Finland to be low-income, and then people wonder how much low-income status has increased.”

This observation also appears to be shared by Professor Heikki Hiilamo, who stated that immigration is “a significant factor” in the increase in poverty. “There has been a change in the labor market, with more and more immigrants working in low-wage occupations.”

In addition, the professor noted that the situation is also affected by the fact that immigrants largely live in big cities, such as Helsinki, where housing costs are relatively high. What more is there to add, except that public authorities in Finland actively encourage this by offering various non-reciprocal benefits to citizens of other countries as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration
Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?

Is Immigration Driving the Nordic Countries Apart?

The bigger Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland – are generally seen as a highly unified group of states, where democratic decision-making works exceptionally well. At the same time, however, they have undergone major demographic changes as a result of humanitarian immigration, which will likely have a significant impact on their future.

Sweden, as a former great power, is the largest Nordic country, governed by the local EPP together with a smaller EPP party and a liberal RE party. The government is also supported in parliament by an ECR party outside the coalition, whose immigration policy goals have been included in the government program.

This unusual arrangement stems from the fact that Sweden’s immigration policy has been extremely liberal, which has made the country’s population more multicultural than in the other Nordic countries. At the same time, the related challenges have also been greater.

This is reflected in the support for Swedish parties. The largest party in the country is still the Social Democrats (S&D group in the European Parliament), with around 34% support, but a party belonging to the ECR group that is critical of multiculturalism has risen to compete with the EPP for second place, with about 20% support. The country’s other parties are small.

Denmark is currently governed by a three-party coalition consisting of the Social Democrats (S&D) and two RE parties.

Unlike in the other Nordic countries, Denmark’s S&D has long pursued a strict immigration policy, which has reduced immigration-related problems. This helped their support rise a few years ago to very high levels – even around 35% – but in recent years it has dropped to about 20%. Despite this, the party remains clearly the most popular in the country.

Denmark’s second most popular party has been the Greens (G/EFA), with support around 15%. They are followed slightly behind by the RE-affiliated Venstre party, and behind them an ECR party at about 10%, which is slightly higher than the Danish PfE group, whose support has risen significantly this year. In addition, a large number of smaller parties influence Danish politics, including the smallest RE party in government.

In Norway, the country is currently governed by a minority government of the local S&D party, but parliamentary elections are being held today and tomorrow, after which a new government will likely be formed.

Humanitarian immigration in Norway has been more limited, and thus the related problems have been smaller than in Sweden. Nevertheless, the local ECR group has in recent years competed for the position of the country’s largest party alongside the S&D and the EPP. Meanwhile, the far left (SV) has lost support.

In my home country of Finland, the government is formed by two EPP parties, an ECR party, and an RE party representing the interests of the Swedish-speaking population. The government has pursued a strict economic policy driven by the larger EPP party, while also following the relatively strict immigration policy demanded by the ECR party in its government program.

During the current parliamentary term, the support for Finland’s EPP parties and the language-based party has remained relatively stable (around 20%, 3%, and 4%, respectively). By contrast, the Finns Party’s support collapsed under government responsibility, falling from around 20% in the 2023 elections to about half of that, though in recent months it has started to rise again.

Among the opposition parties, support has grown for the S&D party, which has risen to 26%, making it clearly Finland’s most popular party at the moment. Another recent gainer has been the former agrarian party (around 15%), which for some reason belongs to the RE group in the European Parliament. Meanwhile, the Greens’ support has long been in decline (8%), while the far-left party belonging to the LEFT group has remained fairly stable in 10%.

As this brief overview of Nordic politics shows, there are significant political differences among these countries regarding immigration. It remains to be seen how these differences develop in the future – and especially whether Sweden’s long-standing open immigration policy will lead it to diverge from the other Nordic countries.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Nordic Police Announce: Spread of Gang Violence Cannot Be Stopped
Nordic Nations Unite Against the Growing Threat of Cross-Border Organized Crime

Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration

Under the leadership of Finland’s Minister of Finance, Riikka Purra (Finns Party), a budget proposal has been drawn up which would allocate no state-collected tax money next year to the integration of immigrants or the reception of quota refugees. This would be a major change from the current situation, in which a significant share of tax revenue is used precisely for these purposes.

According to Minister Purra, “The integration structures within the public sector, and the ‘private’ integration industry that has grown around them, form one branch of the welfare state that has become enormous. The taxpayer foots the bill. If immigration broadly worked, such structures wouldn’t be needed at all. The government has previously cut integration spending, and in my opinion, it could easily cut more.”

Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party) commented on the proposed change, stating that “Integration should not be measured by the amount of money spent, and society should have an incentive to push those granted permission straight into work. That would also put an end to all sorts of busywork back home, such as collecting droppings in matchboxes.”

It remains to be seen, however, how the other government parties and Parliament will respond to the Finance Minister’s proposal. It is expected that the ending of support for companies making their living from immigration would face opposition within the government, at least from the Swedish People’s Party, and in Parliament from the entire green-left bloc.

The taxpayer, on the other hand, would welcome it—since once Finland’s chronically deficit-ridden state budget is brought into balance, they might one day have a say over the use of a larger share of their own paycheck.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Finnish Branch of Extinction Rebellion Faces Possible Ban
Finland's Stance on NATO Defense Spending Is Linked to the Geopolitical Threat from Russia

Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog

The Ukrainian parliament decided yesterday to approve a law that limits the independence of the country's anti-corruption bureau and the anti-corruption prosecutor's office. The law came into force immediately with the signature of President Zelensky.

In practice, this means that corruption investigations will now fall under the authority of the Prosecutor General – who is appointed by the President – thereby stripping the investigation process of its independence from the country’s top leadership. As a result, it effectively prevents any meaningful investigation into corruption linked to Zelensky and his administration.

The change is reportedly driven by suspicions of collaboration between anti-corruption bodies and Russian operatives. If these allegations are true, the matter is of course extremely serious and cannot be ignored. This is the case even though, from an external perspective, the measures taken by the administration appear questionable.

On the other hand, it is clear that – as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe – Ukraine has no place in the European Union until its deeply rooted “customary” corruption has been thoroughly eradicated. Therefore, this decision may seriously damage the country’s aspirations to become part of the Western community. And if the new law is found to enable corruption within the top leadership, it is highly likely that it would also collapse the EU countries' willingness to continue military support for Ukraine.

For this reason, perhaps the most important domestic political task for Zelensky’s administration is to demonstrate through its future actions that the purpose of the new law was not to shield the country’s elite from corruption investigations, but solely to eliminate the identified security risk linked to Russia. To support this, it is essential that the actions of Ukraine’s top officials are closely and credibly monitored as a condition for continued Western economic and military support.

PS 21:20. It seems that Zelensky has understood the risks brought by the change, or at least is yielding to the pressure from citizens. That’s good, because – as I wrote – the risks were too great. Nevertheless, Ukrainians must figure out how to keep the Russians out of Ukrainian affairs.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure? 
Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?

Parliament decided today by a clear majority that Finland will withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, allowing its Defence Forces to once again utilize anti-personnel mines in their operations. The vote result was 157 in favor and 18 against.

Thus ended the risky decision taken in 2011 by Finland’s Social Democratic President Tarja Halonen and the National Coalition Party’s Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen. At that time, the only parties voting against the treaty in Parliament were the Finns Party and a small number of Centre Party representatives.

Today, those who voted against the withdrawal agreement — effectively voting in favor of Putin — included ten members of the Left Alliance parliamentary group (1), seven members of the Greens (2), and one representative of the Swedish People's Party (3). These individuals are widely regarded in Finland as errand boys and girls for Putin.

All other members present supported the reintroduction of anti-personnel mines as a means of defense, to ensure that Russia remains on the eastern side of the approximately 1,300-kilometer border between the two countries. Many recognized the urgency of this need already in 2014, when Putin’s "little green men" occupied Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. For those slower to grasp the situation, the reality became clear in 2022, when the Russian army invaded Ukraine.

* * *

In this context, I cannot help but express my astonishment at UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who took it upon himself to interfere in Finnish decision-making by strongly advocating for Finland to remain in the treaty. The reasons for this are anyone’s guess, as it would seem quite strange if the head of the United Nations were somehow under the influence of the Russian dictator.

Of course, it’s also possible that Guterres was simply unaware of how Finland uses anti-personnel mines and feared they would pose a danger to civilians. However, this fear is unfounded, because — unlike in developing countries — Finnish mines are not scattered randomly in the terrain.

Instead, the Finnish army lays minefields only when there is a clearly identified threat, and even then, their locations are recorded both on paper and in electronic systems. This ensures that minefields can be dismantled immediately when no longer needed — and therefore do not pose a threat to civilian lives or health.

1. Timo Furuholm, Veronika Honkasalo. Mai Kivelä, Anna Kontula, Minja Koskela, Pia Lohikoski, Laura Meriluoto, Aino-Kaisa Pekonen, Hanna Sarkkinen and Johannes Yrttiaho)
2. Fatim Diarra, Tiina Elo, Bella Forsgrén, Inka Hopsu, Saara Hyrkkö, Jenni Pitko and Oras Tynkkynen
   
3. Eva Biaudét

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

According to a recent opinion poll, 44 percent of Finns would like to recognize the State of Palestine. This group consists mainly of voters from the Left Alliance, the Greens, and the Social Democrats. On the other hand, on the political right, supporters of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party are more opposed to the idea than others.

There are hardly any differences between age groups, but women are more inclined than men to support the establishment of a new state in the Middle East—despite the fact that women’s rights would likely not be realized there. Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, for his part, has stated that Finland should also recognize Palestine if the United Kingdom, France, or other major countries do so.

* * *

All of this reminded me of Finland’s own independence from Russian rule. The Declaration of Independence was approved by the Finnish Parliament on December 6, 1917, shortly after the October Revolution.

After that, Finland began seeking support for its independence from Western countries, but they were unwilling to recognize it. Support was first sought from Germany, which initially promised to raise the matter in the peace negotiations with Russia in Brest-Litovsk. However, this did not happen; instead, the Germans said they would wait for Soviet Russia to recognize the new state first.

Consequently, the Finnish government sent a request for recognition of independence to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and Britain. Recognition was not requested from Russia, as it was thought that it would be more inclined to approve the matter once the Western powers had already done so.

This hope turned out to be in vain, as the Western countries urged the Prime Minister to turn to the Bolshevik government of Russia, led by Lenin. The Finnish Prime Minister, however, was reluctant to do so, as he did not want to acknowledge the Bolsheviks as the legitimate rulers of Russia.

Eventually, on December 22, the Finnish Parliament decided to seek recognition not from the Bolshevik government, but from the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was expected to convene soon and where the majority was made up of Russia’s more moderate left-wing parties. Germany, however, intervened and pressured the Finnish government to approach Lenin’s Council of People's Commissars instead.

This is what happened, and Lenin did recognize Finland’s independence. He did so because he believed that supporting the right of national minorities to secede would further the Bolsheviks’ main goal—the spread of the socialist revolution. In his view, the separation should only be temporary, as he assumed that the small nations breaking away from Russia would later voluntarily rejoin either the Russian socialist federation or a broader worldwide Soviet union.

* * *

As for myself, when it comes to recognizing Palestinian independence, I believe the time is not yet right. After all, there isn’t even a theoretically independent Arab state in the Holy Land that would meet the criteria for statehood.

However, I would be ready to recognize Palestine immediately after Israel does. In other words, I would act in the same way that the Western countries did when they eventually recognized Finland’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean

The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE) has issued a warning about the threat of instrumentalised migration. According to the Centre, "large-scale instrumentalised migration could cause significant problems for Finland's societal peace, as well as public order and security, potentially impairing crisis decision-making and operational capabilities."

The Centre also noted that "it is possible that by exploiting disinformation arising from such a situation, solidarity towards Finland within Europe could be significantly diminished. Should such a hybrid campaign become highly effective, it may pave the way for some unexpected political and military arrangements."

The Centre drew attention to the fact that “unauthorised crossing of Finland’s eastern land border is considerably easier and safer than the hundreds of kilometres of sea travel across the Mediterranean. Therefore, Finland may face even greater pressure than what has traditionally been seen at the Mediterranean. This vulnerability is of a permanent nature, and Russia can exploit this mechanism with minimal effort.”

A representative of the Hybrid CoE also pointed out the EU Commission's stance, which states that "to safeguard the security of the Union and the territorial integrity of its member states, it is essential that member states bordering Russia and Belarus can act decisively and firmly to effectively control the Union’s external borders. Consequently, member states may need to make exceptions to EU regulations if instrumentalised migration threatens the public order, internal security, or national security of the Union and its member states."

* * *

This expert statement was issued in connection with the plans to extend Finland's border security law concerning the eastern frontier. Originally passed as a one-year measure in the summer of 2024, the law sparked intense debate, particularly among the political green-left. As a result, six Social Democrats, one Swedish People's Party representative, and the entire parliamentary groups of the Greens and the Left Alliance voted against it. Despite the objections from MPs who, in effect, aligned themselves with Russia’s position, the law passed in Parliament with the necessary majority: 167 votes to 31.

This spring, the political left has once again voiced pro-Moscow criticism regarding the extension of the border law (one, two, three examples). That is why it is important that the expert statement referenced above not only addressed the actual threats but also clearly highlighted the European Commission’s position, which justifies deviation from EU regulations in cases of instrumentalised migration.

Indeed, it would be an utterly untenable situation if the EU or any of its member states were unable to defend themselves against hostile threats from the East simply because they clung to regulatory frameworks, regardless of the consequences. One would hope this point would be heard—and more importantly, understood—even by the political green-left, though that may be a vain hope.

In the coming weeks, we shall see what kind of spectacle unfolds in the Finnish Parliament and the media as the border security law is revisited. However, it already seems clear that this is nothing more than political theatre, as there are ultimately too few MPs willing to act as Putin’s advocates by opposing Finland’s security interests and reopening the country’s borders to hybrid operations. Still, it is helpful that they reveal themselves so openly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Shock in Berlin: AfD Surges, Merz Stumbles

It may come as no surprise that the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is taking the country's intelligence service to court over its classification of the party as a far-right group. What is a far bigger surprise, however, is that Friedrich Merz was not elected Chancellor in the first vote of the Bundestag, Germany's federal parliament, to lead a coalition government between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.

This is likely to be corrected in the second vote. More interestingly, the AfD has already called for new elections.

The reason for this is likely the party’s rising popularity, now surpassing that of all other parties. This is certainly not only due to the perception that the intelligence service’s classification is undemocratic. The protest mood has likely also been fueled by the fact that no attempt was made—even symbolically—to negotiate a coalition with the AfD, which came second in the election. That, too, can be seen as a sign of broken democracy.

That’s why it will be fascinating to see how support for German political parties evolves in the coming months and years. Will the AfD continue to grow in popularity, or will Merz’s government restore public trust in the traditional parties?

At least Merz has a good starting point: the debt brake has been loosened, and he has pledged to fix Germany’s infrastructure and armed forces with hundreds of billions in additional funding. On the other hand, if Germany's sluggish economy begins to noticeably affect people's standard of living, support could also rise for protest parties other than the AfD.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
AfD Under Fire – But Is Democracy the Price?
Good luck to Chancellor Friedrich Merz!
What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?

From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins

Russia's attack on Ukraine has led to a complete transformation of Finland's foreign policy. Whereas during the Soviet era, politicians in my home country often aligned themselves with the positions of our great eastern neighbor, and even at the beginning of this millennium avoided directly criticizing the blatant injustices it committed, today they are ready to respond to Russia's actions exactly as they deserve.

We saw another example of this today when the Finnish Parliament — unanimously, note, unanimously, from the left to the right — approved the government's proposal for a complete ban on Russian real estate acquisitions. As a result, Minister Antti Häkkänen (National Coalition Party) expressed his "great joy that Parliament so comprehensively supported this proposal, whose goal is to strengthen national security. This decision sends a clear message: we will not allow Finland to be destabilized."

Meanwhile, in Ukraine itself, Russian forces have once again attacked and even made some advances, but only at great cost. In particular, Ukrainian drones have caused significant destruction among the attackers. According to Ukrainian sources, drones have been responsible for as much as 70 percent of the losses suffered by Russian forces.

According to Finnish expert Pasi Paroinen, satellite images have made it possible to assess that Russia has almost no old Soviet-era stockpiles left. It remains to be seen what Putin and his military leadership will do once the very last museum piece has been retrieved from storage and sent to be destroyed by Ukrainian drones.

The question is: should they finally give up?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine and the West's Responsibility

In Finland, the Enemy Is Clear – and Now the Truth Is Emerging for the Palestinians Too

The Finnish government is proposing an extension to the so-called "pushback law." This law, which closes the border between Finland and Russia, came into effect last July with an almost unanimous decision in Parliament. Extending it once again requires a clear majority in Parliament.

That appears to be happening, as the parties still hold the same positions they did during the original vote that enacted the law. Only the Greens and the Left Alliance oppose the proposal, while the rest understand that Putin must not be given the opportunity to continue his hybrid warfare, which instrumentalizes migrants.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats—also in opposition—have stated that "ensuring border security is just as relevant as it was a year ago," and they intend to support the government. The Centre Party, also in opposition, will do the same.

It seems that Finland’s eastern border will remain closed until Russia provides credible proof that it will no longer use asylum seekers against Finland. For everyone's sake, it would be best if this happened as soon as possible—the ball is now in Vladimir Putin’s court.

* * *

News has also emerged from the Holy Land. Frustration among Gaza’s residents appears to have reached new heights after Israel resumed bombings a week ago, following a two-month ceasefire.

As a result, Palestinians in Gaza staged a protest on Tuesday against Hamas, which governs the territory. The demonstrators called Hamas members terrorists and demanded an end to the war against Israel.

It appears that many Palestinians have come to realize that their biggest problem is not Israel but Hamas, which continues to wage endless terrorism. However, it remains to be seen whether the protests will grow large enough to force Hamas to surrender, release the hostages, and agree to lay down its arms permanently.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Time for Hamas to Accept the Facts
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Supercell’s Ban: The Sanction That Hit Russians the Hardest

During the war in Ukraine, there has been much discussion within the EU about boycotts directed against Russia. Unfortunately, the measures taken have not led to the paralysis of the aggressor or to citizen protests capable of toppling the government.

However, today, it was revealed which EU action has hit Russians the hardest. The chairman of the Russian Esports Federation, Dmitry Smith, stated that the "biggest blow of all" came from an announcement by Supercell, the company known for its numerous hit games.

According to him, competitions in the game Clash Royale had been organized in Russia for several years. However, after the invasion of Ukraine, Supercell banned Russians from using their game.

The company had also immediately condemned Russia’s invasion in the spring of 2022. Additionally, it removed its games from Russian and Belarusian app stores and, in the spring of 2023, blocked Russian and Belarusian players from accessing its games.

As a result of Supercell’s ban, the representatives of Russian players have launched assessment processes, as, according to the Russian constitution, every athlete "has the right to engage in sports that should be publicly available." They have also held discussions with the Duma (Russian parliament) and the relevant committee, which believe that major esports titles should be publicly accessible rather than entirely under corporate control.

Nevertheless, Supercell has reaffirmed that the restrictions on Russians and Belarusians remain in place as long as the war continues. One can only hope that this gaming ban will eventually lead to such an uprising among game-hungry Russians that Putin’s administration will be forced to withdraw from Ukraine to appease them.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Finnish Deputy Mayor Wanted to Ban an Old Board Game from Children
Anecdotes and Jokes About Vladimir Putin
Which one should be excluded from the Olympics?

Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

In 2012, Finland joined the Ottawa Treaty, effectively prohibiting itself from using anti-personnel mines in the event of a Russian attack. The treaty was championed at the time by socialist president Tarja Halonen, who justified the decision by citing accidents caused by landmines, particularly in developing countries.

However, the irresponsible use of mines has never applied to the Finnish military, which has always ensured that civilians are kept away from minefields.

Perhaps for this reason, the Finnish far-left jurist Martin Scheinin came up with the claim that mines could pose a danger to migrants brought into Finland as hybrid warfare tools by Russia. This comment has mostly sparked amusement, as by the same logic, Russian tanks transporting asylum seekers should also be allowed to cross the border without resistance.

The discussion about the security risks caused by the Ottawa Treaty began in Finland about a month ago, when the Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, Janne Jaakkola, stated that Finland's security environment has changed since 2012. Many ordinary citizens had already been contemplating the same issue since the start of the war in Ukraine.

Thus, on Finland’s Independence Day, December 6, a campaign was launched to gather supporters for a citizens' initiative calling for Finland to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. The initiative quickly gathered the required 50,000 signatures and was submitted to the Parliament's office today.

It remains to be seen whether Parliament will approve the initiative or ignore the will of the Defence Forces Commander and the people, thereby discarding one of the most effective means of defending the country’s 1,300-kilometer border with Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
Finland after the Russian war in Ukraine

A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

Chairman of the Finnish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Kimmo Kiljunen (Social Democrativ Party), met with representatives of a Finnish-Russian association in October in the Parliament's premises. During the meeting, he reportedly advocated for the opening of Finland’s eastern border despite the risk posed by Russia's hybrid operations.

This stance may be connected to the fact that Kiljunen’s wife has a Russian background. However, when meeting with the association representatives, he emphasized his position as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, highlighting the access it grants him to information typically unavailable to regular MPs.

Additionally, he expressed his intention to arrange a hearing within the Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss the situation of Finnish-Russians and border-related issues. He also claimed that the closure of the eastern border was no longer a temporary solution and that keeping it closed constituted a human rights violation against Finnish-Russians.

The Finnish-Russian organization told Kiljunen that Finnish media portrays Finnish-Russians and dual citizens negatively. Kiljunen agreed, accusing Finnish tabloid newspapers of promoting Russian hybrid influence.

Kiljunen also criticized plans to ban real estate transactions by Russian nationals in Finland, expressing concern over a growing atmosphere of suspicion towards Russians in the country. 

Russian media outlets have also reported on the case. For instance, the headlines of publications such as Lenta and Gazeta on Thursday evening stated that Kiljunen had been “forced to apologize.” Meanwhile, the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today reported that Kiljunen had faced criticism from his party colleagues. In other words, the Kiljunen case further strained relations between Russians and Finns.

As a result of these developments, MP Kiljunen has today stepped down as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Speaker of Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), commented that Kiljunen was echoing Kremlin narratives, suggesting that the closure of the eastern border and restrictions on Russian real estate purchases were driven by racist motives. Halla-aho likened this to serving a "perfect pass to the blade of the Kremlin's hockey stick."

If one seeks a positive takeaway from this situation—beyond the fact that it came to light—it is the clear condemnation of Kiljunen’s actions from within his own party, the Social Democrats. This demonstrates that, with few exceptions like Kiljunen, Finns remain united against the persistent threat posed by Putin's Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor
Russians are, Intellectually, Spiritually, and Morally, a Deficient People
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

Important Changes Ahead: What You Need to Know About Finland’s Quota Refugee Selection

Yesterday, I blogged about how Finland plans to enhance the use of its development aid funds. Additionally, two weeks ago, I wrote that even in the long term, Finns do not benefit from humanitarian immigration from developing countries.

Today, Finland's largest newspaper reported that the second main party in Finland's government, the Finns Party, plans to reduce the proportion of Muslims among the quota refugees. This would mean, for example, that Venezuelans would be prioritized over Afghans when selecting newcomers.

In practice, Finland will take 500 quota refugees next year. This happens in such a way that the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) presents a group of individuals, from which Finnish authorities ultimately select the quota refugees for Finland, based on the government's defined regional allocation.

The decision-making process in Finland proceeds as follows: under the leadership of the responsible minister from the Finns Party, a draft proposal is prepared and will be discussed by the government's Ministerial Committee on Internal Security and Justice at the end of October. Finally, the parliament will decide on the refugee quota based on the government's proposal toward the very end of the year.

One can hope that the Finns Party's proposal goes through, and that fewer individuals with a poor assimilation outlook will arrive in Finland this year. As a result, the societal burden related to quota refugees will hopefully decrease – or even turn into a positive outcome. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Responsible Development Aid and New Priorities: Finland's Development Cooperation Reforms
The attractiveness of Finland to welfare-seeking economic migrants reduces
Humanitarian immigration does not provide a solution to Finland's demographic dependency ratio

Criminal Attack Against Finnish Democracy

This morning, the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, in collaboration with the Swedish group Återställ Våtmarker, defaced the Finnish Parliament House to gain visibility for their political views. That is why I won’t discuss their goals in this writing but will briefly present my own opinion on their actions.

Defacing the Parliament House was a direct attack on Finnish democracy, which is based on decisions made by representatives elected by the people. In making these decisions, all political perspectives are represented according to the weight they hold among the Finnish population.

However, this is not acceptable to the Extinction Rebellion activists and the Swedes involved in the defacement, as they demand for themselves a dictatorial right to decide on the nation’s common affairs. In other words, through their actions, they appear to be criminal usurpers of power who should receive the maximum legal punishment for their deeds and be held financially responsible for the costs - estimated to exceed 10 000 euros - incurred.

In this context, the Kone Foundation, established by the Finnish elevator manufacturer Kone Corporation, finds itself in a peculiar situation. It has publicly funded the activities of Extinction Rebellion, which, at least in the public's mind, makes it partially responsible for what happened. And it doesn't help that you say the funding you approved hasn't been earmarked for defacing the Parliament House.

In this situation, I expect the foundation to take responsibility. That is, to publicly announce the immediate cessation of its funding for the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, to refuse any involvement in paying for the damages caused by the activists, and to unequivocally condemn their actions.

Although the Kone Corporation is not directly responsible for the actions of its foundation, it would be good if the company also condemned the incident and, in one way or another, reprimanded its foundation for its reckless use of funds. This, of course, only if the company supports representative democracy and does not feel sympathy toward criminals—and even then, only if they care about their international reputation.

Finally, I do not believe that the action taken today will increase the acceptability of the activists' goals among ordinary people. On the contrary, it will probably - and hopefully - turn against them.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Relationship Between the Professor and Teemu Selänne
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

Predictions Based on the Opinion Polls in the UK

The elections in the United Kingdom gave the Labour Party virtually unlimited power with around one-third of the vote. This was due to the electoral system, but at the same time, it was obviously contrary to the general idea of democracy, where every political movement should have representation in the decision-making bodies—parliaments—that reflects their share of the vote as accurately as possible.

Thus, Keir Starmer became Prime Minister, and his government has "distinguished itself" by violently suppressing protests and restricting freedom of speech. You might expect this to be reflected in post-election party support polls.

Interestingly, according to Politico's published tracking, Labour's support has remained unchanged, as has the Conservatives'. However, the support for Nigel Farage's Reform UK and the Greens has increased by several percentage points, even though the latter, in particular, has no realistic chance of becoming a significant political player due to the peculiarities of the UK's electoral system.

Let’s consider what would happen if this trend continued until the next elections. In that case, Reform UK would surpass the Conservatives in support and perhaps even challenge Labour. However, this party differs from the other two in that its support is distributed much more evenly across the population and geography. Therefore, far fewer of its candidates would be elected in the UK’s single-member constituencies than would happen under a proportional electoral system.

Thus, Labour might continue to hold power in Britain even if its vote count ended up being smaller than that of Reform UK. Only a true landslide victory could make Farage the Prime Minister.

For this reason, it is not insignificant how the British people react to Starmer’s government policies. Will censorship of opinions and turning a blind eye to the behavior of immigrants cause Labour supporters to abandon Starmer, or will they see these—odd from a Finnish perspective—actions as reflecting their will as expressed in the elections?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Swedish TV Did Not Learn Anything From the Riots in the UK
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?

Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Yesterday was an important day for Finland and all of Europe, as the parliament approved the so-called return law with a vote of 167-31. In this way, our country has shown our hybrid war-fighting neighbor that Finland will not submit to its victimization.

With the new return law, asylum seekers attempting to enter Finland can be prevented from entering the country, submitting asylum applications, or removed from outside the borders when they are being used as tools of hybrid warfare. Thus, the law is not about violating human rights but about a means to prevent the misuse of the asylum system when its purpose is to destabilize or blackmail the security of Finland and/or Europe.

Unfortunately, 31 members of parliament decided to express with their voting behavior that promoting the hybrid activities of our eastern neighbor is more important to them than the safety of their own people. Therefore, I considered it appropriate to make a list of them so that the irresponsible actions of these politicians would remain in the memory of social media for a long time to come.

The members of parliament who voted against the return law are Li Andersson (Left Alliance), Eva Biaudet (Swedish People's Party), Fatim Diarra (Greens), Tuuna Elo (Greens), Bella Forsgrén (Greens), Timo Furuholm (Left Alliance), Elisa Gebhard (Social Democrats), Pekka Haavisto (Greens), Timo Harakka (Social Democrats), Atte Harjanne (Greens), Hanna Holopainen (Greens), Veronica Honkasalo (Left Alliance), Inka Hopsu (Greens), Saara Hyrkkö (Greens), Krista Kiuru (Social Democrats), Mai Kivelä (Left Alliance), Anna Kontula (Left Alliance), Minja Koskela (Left Alliance), Johan Kvarnström (Social Democrats), Merja Kyllönen (Left Alliance), Laura Meriluoto (Left Alliance), Krista Mikkonen (Greens), Matias Mäkynen (Social Democrats), Maria Ohisalo (Greens), Aino-Kaisa Pekonen (Left Alliance), Jenni Pitko (Greens), Nasima Razmyar (Social Democrats), Jussi Saramo (Left Alliance), Hanna Sarkkinen (Left Alliance), Oras Tynkkynen (Greens), and Sofia Virta (Greens).

Of the people on the list, 23 or 74 percent are women, and the remaining 26 percent are men. In other words, female members of parliament are significantly more inclined than their male colleagues to act as Vladimir Putin's helpers or at least his useful idiots.

Among them, Eva Biaudet belongs to a government party, so there will likely be consequences for her voting behavior. Otherwise, those who have chosen to act as Russia's stooges represented the extreme or slightly more moderate left.

It was also significant that all three members of parliament with a developing country background - Diarra, Forsgrén, and Razmyar - supported Putin. This suggests that Finland's security is not important to them, or they are unable to understand the threat posed by Russia. This is, of course, unfortunate, because one would especially expect them to appreciate the security of their current home country.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and Western Europe: Effectively at War
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
Change of immigration policy and development cooperation

French Election Results: A Deep Dive into Tactical Voting and Its Implications

The second round of the French elections held yesterday has been followed worldwide with great interest because, based on the first round, it was speculated that the immigration-critical National Rally might rise to become the country's largest party and possibly even take on government responsibility.

However, when the results came out, it was clear that this did not happen. Instead, the largest party in parliament became the red-green New Popular Front with 182 seats. The center-right Ensemble pour la République, supported by President Macron, came second, and the National Rally ended up with only 143 seats. Other parties received 68 seats.

What makes the result interesting is something that, at least on their election coverage websites, the national broadcaster Yleisradio as well as private newspapers Ilta-Sanomat and Iltalehti failed to mention.

Namely, in Finnish elections, the percentage distribution of votes usually plays a major role. According to this, the clear winner of the elections was the National Rally with 37.1 percent. The New Popular Front, which grabbed the most seats, received "only" 25.8 percent, and the Ensemble coalition got 24.5 percent of the votes.

In other words, the elections saw a huge discrepancy between the parties' support and the number of parliamentary seats they received. The explanation for this was so-called tactical voting, an unholy alliance where the political center-right and left-green encouraged voters in each constituency to support each other's candidate if the National Rally candidate had a chance of winning.

One can – of course – ask whether true democracy was realized in the Gallic elections.

In this writing, however, I do not aim to answer the question I posed, but I note that it will be extremely difficult for Macron's supporters and the left-green to find common ground on the direction in which France will be governed in the future. And the situation is not helped by the fact that the left-green New Popular Front is very likely to break up during the current parliamentary term.

This might not matter much otherwise, but France's public finances are even more indebted than Finland's. And the country's economy has not grown in a long time. Meanwhile, the number of immigrants is steadily increasing, and as a result, the number of Muslims now stands at about 10 percent of the population.

Therefore, it remains to be seen what will happen in one of the EU's major powers in the upcoming parliamentary term. My guess is that we will see a lot of action and dangerous situations, so to speak, but France's problems will remain unresolved despite this. And this is not good for the EU, the French, or Finland.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?
A National Rally election victory does not mean that France will become like Finland under the Finns Party
The future of all Europe is at stake

The future of all Europe is at stake

Europe has long been undergoing significant change. Amid their prosperity, the continent's original inhabitants have had fewer children, while at the same time, a diverse array of people have been flooding in from developing countries.

As a result, numerous political parties have emerged in European democracies that are critical of the ongoing changes. These include parties like Finland's Finns Party, Sweden's Sweden Democrats, Germany's Alternative for Germany, and Italy's Brothers of Italy.

Many of these parties performed exceptionally well in the recent EU parliamentary elections. This was also the case in France, where the success of the National Rally prompted President Emmanuel Macron to call for new elections.

The first round of those elections takes place today and could have a significant impact on Europe's future. The latest opinion polls predict that the National Rally could garner as much as 35-37% of the vote, while Macron's forces could come in third with about 20-21%. The united left is positioned in between.

If the election results follow the polls, it would mean significant polarization in French society, where these forces, unwilling to cooperate with each other, would try to find a solution on how to move the country forward.

Thus, it remains to be seen – if the election results match the predictions – how French politics will shape up in the coming years. Will they take examples from countries like Finland, where immigration criticism has been included in the government program by building effective cooperation among the right-wing parties in parliament, especially the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party?

However, France's situation differs from Finland in two ways. Firstly, its Muslim population is significantly larger – around ten percent – and secondly, it has not been customary to seek pragmatic consensus between different political forces.

It is already clear at this stage that the immigration policies practiced in Europe have led to a new political situation in France – and the entire continent – which will ultimately define the kind of world the descendants of the cradle of Western culture will live in the future. Therefore, it can be rightly said that the stakes of the French elections are the future of all of Europe.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marxist far-right and bullies
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044

Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law

In Finland, there is fear of a hybrid operation organized by Russia, which could result in an influx of asylum seekers from developing countries as spring arrives. Among them, there may also be activists or operatives playing into Putin's hands.

For this reason, the government has prepared a proposal to enhance our country's ability to defend against Russian aggression. During the preparatory consultation process, the draft legislation in question received some critical comments - as expected - so the potential enactment of the law is still ahead.

However, there is hope that this so-called "pushback law" - or the new border law - could be finalized and enacted as soon as possible, and that it would also be effective in practice. This has also been emphasized by both the former and current leaders of the country's foreign policy.

* * *

Relating to the text above, MTV3 published news yesterday stating that if something "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck." The discussion was about a series of mischief in the Baltic countries, suspected to be a hybrid operation organized by Russia.

Related to these incidents, Janis Sarts, the Director of NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, assessed that if Russia sees the method working in the Baltics, similar hybrid influence operations could also be seen in Finland in the future. This could include, for example, Molotov cocktail attacks or threats against daycare centers - something hardly any Finn would want.

It is evident that the suspicion of the hybrid nature of the crimes witnessed is correct, and therefore Sarts' assessment should also be taken seriously in Finland. Steps should be taken to ensure that Russia is not given leeway on our own soil.

Understanding this issue in all parliamentary groups - including those on the political left - is essential right now. And especially when the government's new proposal for the so-called "pushback law" is next up for discussion: in that context, I certainly wouldn't like to see a single useful idiot for Putin.

This is because the law will need to be enacted as a so-called emergency law, which requires a five-sixths majority in parliament. If such a majority cannot be found, there is a risk that we will soon find ourselves even more at the mercy of Russia's bloody dictator.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Desperate cry of Russians
The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers
Political rats and useful idiots